Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | > You can work around this by using union's of pointers of both non-const
| > | > and const types, but the reinterpret_cast solution would be more
attractive.
| > | >
| > | > Thoughts?
| > |
>
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > You can work around this by using union's of pointers of both non-const
> | > and const types, but the reinterpret_cast solution would be more
> attractive.
> | >
> | > Thoughts?
> |
> | This has nothing to do with const vs non-const but r
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > You can work around this by using union's of pointers of both non-const
| > and const types, but the reinterpret_cast solution would be more attractive.
| >
| > Thoughts?
|
| This has nothing to do with const vs non-const but rather
| a and a are tw
> You can work around this by using union's of pointers of both non-const
> and const types, but the reinterpret_cast solution would be more attractive.
>
> Thoughts?
This has nothing to do with const vs non-const but rather
a and a are two seperate types which are not related in any way.
The C+
